Vill. of Elliott, Corp. v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 01 July 2014 |
| Docket Number | NO. 4-13-0489,4-13-0489 |
| Citation | 2014 IL App (4th) 130489 -U |
| Parties | THE VILLAGE OF ELLIOTT, a Municipal Corporation; and TRACY MOTT, Plaintiffs and Counterdefendants-Appellees, v. DUANE WILSON, Defendant and Counterplaintiff-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
JUSTICE HOLDER WHITE delivered the judgment of the court.
¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, holding the trial court did not err in (1) dismissing plaintiff's counterclaim for failure to state a claim, (2) denying defendant's motion for mistrial, (3) allowing plaintiffs to present photographs depicting vehicles not described in the complaint, and (4) imposing a fine against defendant.
¶ 2 In April 2010, plaintiffs, the Village of Elliott (Village) and the Village's mayor, Tracy Mott, in his individual capacity, authorized the towing of several vehicles from two properties belonging to defendant, Duane Wilson, due to Wilson allegedly violating the Village's ordinance prohibiting abandoned or inoperable vehicles (Ordinance) (Elliott, Ill., Ordinance 4-1-1 (Aug. 8, 1995)). Wilson filed a counterclaim, alleging the Village and Mott violated state law and his federal constitutional rights, which the trial court later dismissed after finding the Village and Mott were immune from liability and that Wilson failed to exhaust state remedies.
Following a January 2013 jury trial, the jury found Wilson violated the Ordinance.
¶ 3 On appeal, Wilson asserts the trial court erred by (1) dismissing his counterclaims, (2) denying his motions for mistrial, (3) allowing the Village to present photographs depicting vehicles not described in the complaint, and (4) imposing a fine on Wilson when the complaint's prayer for relief did not request a fine. For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶ 5 In April 2010, the Village and Mott authorized the towing of several vehicles from two properties belonging to Wilson due to Wilson allegedly violating the Ordinance by keeping inoperable vehicles on his properties. Specifically, from Wilson's property located on Market Street, the Village and Mott authorized the towing of a black and gold Chevrolet pickup truck (Chevy) as well as a Camaro, which ultimately was not towed. From Wilson's property on Main Street, the Village and Mott authorized the towing of three vehicles: (1) a large vehicle trailer, (2) a small trailer used for storage, and (3) a red Mitsubishi.
¶ 6 In June 2010, the Village filed a complaint alleging Wilson violated the Ordinance, which prohibited "the keeping of, or abandonment of, inoperable motor vehicles on public and private property." Elliott, Ill., Ordinance 4-1-1 (Aug. 8, 1995). The Ordinance required the offending party to "dispose of any inoperable motor vehicle under their control within seven (7) days of written notice" from the Village. Elliott, Ill., Ordinance 4-1-4 (Aug. 8, 1995). The complaint stated, in relevant part, (1) Wilson received written notices from the Village regarding the violation; (2) an inoperable Mitsubishi parked upon the large vehicle trailer blocked a sidewalk on Wilson's Main Street property; and (3) an inoperable Chevy was parkedon the Village's right-of-way on Market Street.
¶ 7 In August 2010, Wilson filed an answer denying wrongdoing and a counterclaim against numerous parties, including the Village and Mott. The counterclaim alleged Mott and the Village (1) deprived Wilson of his property without due process of law in violation of the Illinois and federal constitutions (count I); (2) conducted an unreasonable search and seizure of Wilson's vehicles in violation of the Illinois and federal constitutions (count II); (3) violated Wilson's right to equal protection under the Illinois and federal constitutions (count III); (4) trespassed on Wilson's property in violation of state law (count IV); (5) converted Wilson's property in violation of state law (count V); and (6) enforced an ordinance that was unconstitutional on its face in violation of state law and the federal constitution (count VI). Wilson's federal claims alleged the Village and Mott violated Wilson's civil rights pursuant to section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (Civil Rights Act) (42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1996)).
¶ 9 In September 2010, the Village and Mott filed a motion to dismiss Wilson's counterclaim pursuant to sections 2-615 and 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Civil Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-615, 2-619 (West 2010)). In May 2012, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss the counterclaim pursuant to section 2-619, finding (1) the Village and Mott were immune from liability under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS 10/1-101 to 10-101 (West 2010)); (2) the Village and Mott possessed legislative immunity; (3) Mott possessed qualified immunity; and (4) Wilson failed to exhaust state remedies prior to filing a section 1983 action.
¶ 10 In November 2012, prior to the commencement of the trial, Wilson filed a motionin limine requesting, in part, that the court prohibit the Village from introducing evidence regarding vehicles not subject to the trial. The court granted the motion.
¶ 13 In January 2013, Wilson's jury trial commenced. John Huppert testified he was a resident of the Village and had been a Village board member for 12 years. Huppert resided on Maple Street, from which he could observe Wilson's Main Street property. Due to his tenure as a Village board member, Huppert stated he knew of the Ordinance.
¶ 14 In September 2009, Huppert testified he observed and photographed what he believed to be a violation of the Ordinance regarding multiple vehicles parked on Wilson's two properties. Wilson objected to the admission of the photographs, arguing that those photographs depicted vehicles not subject to trial, thus violating the motion in limine. The trial court overruled the objection and found the photographs did not run afoul of the motion in limine as long as the Village placed no "emphasis or innuendo or inference" that the other vehicles were abandoned or inoperable.
¶ 15 Huppert testified he photographed the Chevy, which lacked taillights and appeared to be sunk into the dirt on Wilson's Market Street property. He also photographed a Camaro, which he believed to be inoperable. At Wilson's Main Street property, Huppert photographed a Mitsubishi and two trailers that lacked current registration. He indicated the large car trailer was parked on the sidewalk. Though acknowledging he did not watch Wilson's properties 24 hours a day, Huppert stated he never observed Wilson move any of the five vehicles from September 2009 through December 2009. Prior to the Village towing Wilson'svehicles in April 2010, Huppert observed Wilson had moved the Mitsubishi onto the large car trailer, which was located on the Village sidewalk.
¶ 16 Tracy Mott testified from 2009 to 2010, he was the mayor of the Village, a town of approximately 370 people. Mott stated he was aware of the Ordinance prohibiting abandoned or inoperable vehicles. Though Mott knew Wilson by sight, he had never spoken with him. Wilson owned two properties in the Village, one on Market Street and one on Main Street. According to Mott, Wilson was not using either property as a residence, as both lacked running water. Neither location contained signage indicating Wilson operated a business for wrecking or junking vehicles, nor did Wilson advertise he ran such a business.
¶ 17 In 2009, Mott learned Wilson was allegedly violating the Ordinance by keeping inoperable vehicles on his property. The Village board discussed Wilson's alleged violations and, in December 2009, Mott asked the Village attorney, Ellen Lee, to send notice to Wilson of the alleged violations. The letter indicated Wilson had several vehicles in violation of the Ordinance and stated "you may attend the January 12 board meeting (7:00 p.m.) to present your plan to correct the situation." The letter did not specifically identify which vehicles were allegedly in violation of the Ordinance but did identify both the Market Street and Main Street properties. Wilson did not attend the January 2010 meeting, nor did he attend any subsequent meetings. Mott stated Wilson did not contact or communicate with Mott or any members of the Village board.
¶ 18 From September 2009 until March 2010, Mott did not observe Wilson moving or working on any of the five vehicles. In March 2010, Mott went to Wilson's properties with a Ford County sheriff's deputy. At that time, Mott asked the deputy to place towing stickers on theChevy, the Camaro, the Mitsubishi, and the small trailer in order to provide seven days' notice prior to towing. Mott believed the towing stickers specifically identified each vehicle subject to towing. While the deputy placed stickers on the vehicles, Mott took photographs. Mott said the Chevy was in a state of disrepair, with parts missing, the tires not holding air, and the tire rims touching the ground. Mott also noted the Chevy was located on the grass between the sidewalk and street, an area that constituted the Village's right-of-way. He could not definitively say whether the Chevy was inoperable.
¶ 19 According to Mott, the Camaro also appeared to be in a state of disrepair, with the tires not holding air and the tire rims touching the ground. Though he stated the Camaro was in "rough-looking condition" and appeared "not safe to drive," Mott did not necessarily know whether the vehicle was inoperable. Further, Mott testified the Mitsubishi and the small trailer located at Wilson's Main Street property lacked current...
To continue reading
Request your trial